BAY CITY, MI — Attorneys representing Bay County Sheriff John E. Miller have filed responses to a pair of lawsuits filed by former jail employees claiming they were terminated for exercising their First Amendment rights amid an internal investigation.

By contrast, the sheriff alleges one was fired for various indiscretions and the other wasn't fired at all, but quit after being confronted with having a sexual relationship with a former inmate on probation.

In their suits, Walraven and Gillis allege their employment as correctional officers ended due to them authoring a memorandum to fellow employees advising them that they could have a union representative present if questioned by a superior officer during an internal investigation into Jail Administrator Capt. Troy Stewart. Their suits also claim that another corrections officer told Miller that Walraven and Gillis discussed reporting the Stewart matter to the Bay County Human Resources Department.

Fred Walraven

In the responses filed by attorneys Kenneth G. Galica, Carlito H. Young, Amber L. Davis-Johnson and Shawn S. Walraven, Miller states that Sgt. Michael Shore in December 2013 conducted an internal investigation after Stewart brought a bottle of prescription mouthwash into the jail and instructed staff to give it to an inmate. However, Miller refutes the allegations made by Gillis and Walraven in their lawsuits that the bottle bore Stewart's name and that another jail employee took a photo of the bottle bearing Stewart's name.

Miller also said he acted lawfully and within his discretion to have the investigation conducted in-house, rather than by a separate police agency.

"It is affirmatively denied that the investigation involved accusations that a command officer committed any felony … because there was no controlled substance involved and for other reasons," the responses state.

Miller also denies that all of the statements Gillis and Walraven authored in their memorandum were legally accurate.

"Sheriff Miller correctly informed (Gillis) that advising employees to disclose the content of or refuse to participate in confidential interviews during the course of an internal criminal investigation in violation of a direct order would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation," the responses state.

The sheriff also denies Gillis' claim that he threatened him with criminal prosecution over the memorandum.

Matthew Gillis

In his suit, Gillis also alleges Undersheriff Troy Cunningham falsely accused him of having sexual contact with an inmate. Miller's response denies this, and also denies that Gillis' employment was terminated in the first place.

Gillis "upon the advice of his union representative, voluntarily submitted his resignation letter to Undersheriff Troy Cunningham after initially denying, then acknowledging he had sexual intercourse with a former jail inmate during the time period she was on probation and under the jurisdiction of the Bay County Sheriff's Department," the response states. "The Plaintiff acknowledged he was involved in a sexual relationship with the former inmate only after being presented with videotaped evidence of such activity."

Walraven alleged in his suit that Miller converted the investigation into Stewart's actions into an effort to obtain pretextual reasons to fire him, something Miller denies.

Miller does state that he placed Walraven on administrative leave on Feb. 18 and subsequently fired him on April 15.

Walraven's "employment was lawfully terminated for just cause for various reasons including, but not limited to, conduct unbecoming an officer, vandalizing jail property, insubordination and disobeying a direct order," the response states.

Regarding the Stewart investigation, Bay County released a statement describing it on Thursday, Aug. 7, stating that Stewart in December procured a prescription for an anti-bacterial mouthwash for an inmate from a licensed dentist. This was done as the inmate was in medical need and the jail's regular pharmacy was closed due to the hour of need and the Christmas holiday.

"All individuals involved in procuring the prescription for the mouth rinse were aware that it was for the intended use of this Bay County jail inmate," the county stated. An internal investigation was conducted and, per department protocol, the results were sent to the Bay County Prosecutor's Office for review. Prosecutors declined to issue charges.

"Rather than leave this inmate to suffer without the mouth rinse over the extended holiday break, Captain Stewart made the decision to assist this inmate by obtaining the mouth rinse from an alternate dentist and pharmacy," the county said. "Despite Captain Stewart's good intentions in expediting this inmate's medical care, he did receive a written letter of reprimand in his file."

The mouthwash did not contain any controlled substances that are divided into five schedules and defined by the federal Controlled Substances Act, the county has said.